Erykah Badu new video for her song WINDOW SEAT has landed the star in some trouble. She takes a stroll down a street in Dallas and strips down to the buff and then simulates being shot in the head in the exact spot president Kennedy was Assassinated. Dallas Police are charging her with disorderly conduct.

Here is an ABC news clip
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=10237461

The news caster says "you will be glad to know there were no children present" but this is not correct as there are several children in frame in the video, when she takes off the bra and panties she was less than 100 feet from where she just passed a child.

Full video on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/e...s_n_523980.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw....20ba68e58.html

It was done to make a political statement but may have crossed the line


reason for edit spelling

Political statement? Top publicity stunt though as I'm sure I would never heard of her otherwise (utter crap song by the way, but hey... )



And I just love the hypocrisy of those types of statements such as "no children present" in places where the sexual form is such an open (and freely available) commodity. What wonderful nonsense!

Kids don't see nudity as a sexual thing - it's idiots that take it to the news for their 5 seconds of fame.

THis was a huge laugh here in dallas, people didn't know what the hell was happening, until some mother called the police and claimed her daughter had been "sexually harassed" which ended up with this whole story being plastered on the 6 O'Clock news. While I can understand the point in making a political statement was it really necessary for her to do a strip walk down dealy plaza. Honestly I think that the media has blown it out of proportion, and that she should face some reprimand, but come on people it was just one time, and nobody seemed to care much, and furthermore if you don't want your kids to see it, be a mature adult parent and COVER THEIR F***ING EYES!!!!

I'm sure you would feel differently if it was a man stripping down naked and your young daughter seen it. Now, before you get all pissy, I would love to have seen her naked, but if she get's away with it what's going to stop some pervert from doing it and claiming it's "art"?

Art or porn...? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article...rely-noticed.do - [WARNING: do not click on link if easily offended]


People like Madonna and Lady Gaga etc have been using their bodies to sell units for some time. Videos of pop artists(esp females) often start with a groin/chest shot before moving on to the face. This is just taking it one step further in my opinion.

I'm not saying she should get away with it, I'm just saying quit making such a big deal about it, look at all the other famous people that have done it. Yes I would have been offended, if that happened to my daughter, but like I said I would have turned her away from it, not called the Dallas PD and reported a sexual harassment. There's a big difference between public indecency (Class A Misdemeanor) and sexual harassment (Class 1 or 2 Felony [depending on severity]), which has been the talk lately on the news. THe mother is screaming to throw her in jail, and her PR guy and Lawyer are working for a public apology in exchange for a lesser charge.

Not the smartest way to get publicity... I mean if that is what she was after she could have just made a sex tape.. I mean that would have probably generated a more profitable return.. All the lawyer fees, and lawsuits I am sure we will hear about coming soon.. Children traumatized, and parents wanting 100 million in pain and suffering... HA.. I mean have you heard the song? Come on the song alone wont generate that much profit..
on a more serious note, I think that whatever the hall she was trying to do she should not get off with a slap on her wrists.. I dont think sexual harassment should be the charge, maybe as C_O mentioned, public indecency as well as a public appology and to admit the way she went about getting her message across should never be attempted again. And if it does happen again, parents have the right to shoot on site.. Ok, maybe not the last part.. ( i never knew she had an backside like that)

The nudity wasn't my issue with it as I think my country's obsession with nudity being evil and graphic violence is wholesome for all ages is a bit bent.

It miffed me a bit that she simulated being assassinated in the place that JFK was assassinated.

Then being charged with disorderly conduct, I feel this had something to do with her being a celebrity, seems she would have other wise been charged for some version of indecency which in most states is listed as a sex offense that would require registering as a sex offender. [Crash_Override] could possibly shed some light on this being a local.

An other thought I had about it is she didn't cross the line from nudity to sexual display until she was lowering her panties and gave the stripperesque booty bump.

As per Title 5 Chapter 21 of the Texas Penal Code:

§ 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an
offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with
intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he
is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or
alarmed by his act.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

and

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a)
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section
43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
© An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

As per Title 9 Chapter 43:

§ 43.22. OBSCENE DISPLAY OR DISTRIBUTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly displays or
distributes an obscene photograph, drawing, or similar visual
representation or other obscene material and is reckless about
whether a person is present who will be offended or alarmed by the
display or distribution.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

and

§ 43.24. SALE, DISTRIBUTION, OR DISPLAY OF HARMFUL
MATERIAL TO MINOR. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Minor" means an individual younger than 18 years.
(2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant
theme taken as a whole:
(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor,
in sex, nudity, or excretion;
(B) is patently offensive to prevailing
standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is
suitable for minors; and
© is utterly without redeeming social value for
minors.
(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the
material is harmful:
(1) and knowing the person is a minor, he sells,
distributes, exhibits, or possesses for sale, distribution, or
exhibition to a minor harmful material;
(2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about
whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the
display; or
(3) he hires, employs, or uses a minor to do or
accomplish or assist in doing or accomplishing any of the acts
prohibited in Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2).
© It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a
person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other
similar justification; or
(2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a
minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or
spouse.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
unless it is committed under Subsection (b)(3) in which event it is
a felony of the third degree.

Thats pretty much all there is that falls under the sexually based offenses the whole Texas Penal Code is here

*Note: This is not legal advice and should not be considered so, I do not consider myself an attorney and anyone who considers me their attorney is wrong

I think that she will get some judicial slack as an established artist though I agree that it seems to be more of a cheap publicity stunt than a proper socio-political statement. The ('sanitized') video's been removed everywhere too, so not much spine to stand behind it -- at least not from her publisher.

So she got a $500 fine and her name in all the papers - cant have been that shocking then - unless one is prudish about such things of course

see

I think it should have been $500 fine and the video to be released uncensored for all to see free of charge.

she got off easy with it, basically they charged her with indecent exposure ( a class C misdemeanor) nothing worse than a traffic ticket. SHe should have gotten SALE, DISTRIBUTION, OR DISPLAY OF HARMFUL
MATERIAL TO MINOR since there were several kids in the area at that time, which constitutes a Class A Misdemeanor ($4,000 fine and possibly a year in jail)